For once the title is rather tame... since it did not just happen only one time:

>Rain caused the wagons to be taken off the city's roads for up to 26 days a month several times last year.
>
>The [2] vehicles stopped working for a combined total of 481 days between January 2021 and November 2022.
>
>[...]
>
>Data from a freedom of information (FOI) request showed there was just one month - November 2021 - when both vehicles were on the road every day.

They DO have lots of smaller ones, assembled together with a water based cooling system.

Some chinese only EV cars also have a detachable battery assembly so they can "charge" in 5 minutes (they swap the whole battery assembly for one that is charged).

Not just that.

He is talking about running size.

Add temporary folders, ram image file for sleep mode and the like.

Is question can be replaced with people:

"how is it that a baby is so small but it requires a lot of room when it wants to run as ann adult" .

The answer to both questions is "they are unrelated".

lol

i didnt even check who I was talking to.

you manage to answer twice, and wonder why you got the same answer twice XD

Yeah, my bad.

It still happened, and for good reasons. You not liking the reason is a "you" problem.

The correct action to signal a mistake when you are a lawyer is to send a private message through proper channels, not post it on facebook.

Doing the latter invites mockery. There is no other point in posting that in public, and yes, justice IS above mockery, wether you like it or not.

That could be an understandable mistake if the person publishing it was a regular one, but it was a lawyer.

BTW thats not the first time something like that happens in the US. Got this with a simple googling.

https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/

No, and you are wrong, proof here :

https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/

Thank you for stating the obvious. I was wondering why he was nort getting ti.

Remember that was posted by a lawyer, not the defendant.

the lawyer knows very well this was not the proper channel.

No it is not. Read the damn XKCD.

The article says it pretty well, and is 5 lines long. What part of it confuses you ?

​

>The [facebook] post showed a picture of a judgment that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, with Naidu [the lawyer] adding the applicant wanted to have it correctly spelt.

If said lawyer and the person he represents wanted it corrected, they should have done it through the proper channels.

But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.

Note that it is not the judge that filed anything.

​

>The Attorney General had described the post as malicious and inviting others to mock the judiciary.

Dude, that was a public message on facebook, not a remark done in a court of law. Read the damn article.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Mandatory XKCD:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

That is not the issue.

No idea why you talk about "cant admit they're wrong".

Unless you are reacting without having read said article... for someone who holds other to high standards, that would be pretty ironical.

Imaging requiring everyone else to do their utmost, all the time, and then reacting to a news article without reading said article ...

Except again, first amendment has nothing to do with it.

First amendment means the government cant prevent you from talking. Judges are not part of the government, as justice does not depend on government.

Contempt of court also exists in the US.

Pointing out spelling mistake by posting it on facebook with a picture of the judge .

Which is the very definition of contempt. Glad he got convicted.